3.8 Review

Spinel/Post-spinel engineering on layered oxide cathodes for sodium-ion batteries

期刊

ESCIENCE
卷 1, 期 1, 页码 13-27

出版社

KEAI PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.esci.2021.10.003

关键词

Sodium-ion batteries; Cathode materials; Layered structures; Spinel engineering; Electrochemistry

资金

  1. Postdoctoral Program for Innovative Talents [BX20200222]
  2. China Postdoctoral Science Foundation [2020M682878]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This review highlights recent advances in spinel engineering on layered oxide cathodes for enhancing Na+ transport kinetics and providing structural stability to achieve high-performance SIBs.
Sodium-ion batteries (SIBs) have attracted much scientific interest for use in large-scale energy storage systems because sodium is cheaper than lithium. However, the large radius of Na+ and barriers to Na+ transport result in sluggish kinetics and complicated structural distortion, leading to unsatisfactory rate capability and poor cycling stability. It therefore is essential to develop an electrode with enhanced kinetics and a stable structure during cycling to improve SIB performance. Among the various layered oxide cathodes, those with a spinel-like structure could play an important role in boosting electron transport because of their excellent intrinsic conductivity, including by coordinating with Na+ insertion/extraction. Moreover, thanks to the inherent high stability of the spinel-like phase, it could function as a stabilizer for host cathode structures. This review summarizes recent advances in spinel engineering on layered oxide cathodes to boost Na+ transport kinetics and provide structural stability to achieve high-performance SIBs, focusing particularly on post-spinel structures, layered oxide integrated spinel-like structures, and spinel transitions. The insights proposed in this review will be useful for guiding rational structural engineering and design to drive the development of new materials and chemistries in Na-based electrode materials.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据